Saturday, August 12, 2006

styles of blogocombat: men vs. women

I hate patriarchy, i.e., the male domination, non-appreciation, and strident exploitation of women. Even in our enlightened age, where women can vote, get educated, and serve as professionals -- we men remain rather caveman-ish and uncouth in many ways.

I think I'm guilty of some macho brutishness sometimes. Especially in blogocombat, my term for online debate. I fight so hard for what I believe to be right, or best practices, that I inadvertently might hurt someone, or seem to attacking them as persons.

Only when I'm convinced a person is a con artist, trouble-maker, or criminal--that's when I attack their person, as well as their behavior or beliefs.

But I'm afraid that much of this pacifying is due to the cruel treatment of women, a sadism that is expressed in treating females as "dangerous property": wrapping ladies in burkhas (Islamo-fascism), forbidding women to be pastors, priestesses, and CEOS (America), and binding their feet (China) so they become helpless and less able to flee.

Us guys seem to enjoy a good fight, whether it's a televised boxing match, a war, or a struggle to be the "top of mind" choice for the consumer. Often, us guys become best friends with another guy...AFTER we have beat the crap out of each other.

Here's what Liz Strauss posted in reply to my wondering about her technique of blog community building. This was a comment she recently posted in response to my comment at her Successful Blog site, which I highly recommend.

Liz has succeeded in making her blog a warm and welcome oasis of friendly discussion. She is so sophisticated, she allows comment posters to go OT (off topic), to talk about unrelated topics, within a post thread. That is very unusual. To Liz, a comment can be whatever is sparked in the reader's mind by her post. What a terrific attitude!

[QUOTE]

Author: ME Strauss

Comment:

Hi Vaspers,

Here's my secret. I really like talking with the people who come here about the ideas that they leave in the comment box.

I also truly believe most people know more than they believe they do -- that's my experience as a teacher coming out.

In real life, I'm more of a tough love teacher than a nurturer, but I don't like conversations that raise the atmospheric stress because they change the tenor of an "argument." Personally when debate gets too heated, I can't hear anymore. I get like a deer in the headlights from the information.

I also notice that in the heat of the battle that men often twist the argument premise slightly to get back on a winning track.

[END QUOTE]

I will have much more to say about all this in the coming days. I am contemplating Why We Fight Online as a serious and vital topic for all who blog.

The main reason I fight online is because there seems to be a firmly entrenched Kingdom of Mediocrity & Deception that is very hateful to anyone who attempts to unveil and expose it. So that motivates me to develop sophisticated blogocombat weaponry and strategies.

What do you think about online debate? Do you avoid it? Are you uncomfortable with conflict? Confrontation? Intervention?

13 comments:

I have a secret indulgence that brings my great joy. Every once in awhile when I am bored I'll head to a very political website or message board and start a fight. On that particular day I may be a liberal on a conservative site or a conservative on a liberal site. I love stoking the fires until people start screaming and are so pissed they could strangle me.

You guys may be taking this to serious. It's politics, and the sites I am talking about actually love it when they can get into a good fight.

I look at trolling more of going to say a PS3 fan-site and saying PS3 sucks and Xbox is the best just to stir people up. Not that gaming is an important subject but people are very passionate about it. They usually have websites dedicated to a particular subject and enjoy talking about that subject with like minded people.

Most political websites/blogs and forums are very different. What is the sense of having a political website/forum if everyone agrees, sounds sort of boring. As far as taking both sides of a subject. I see no problem with that as I can usually see arguments for both sides. Though I do tend to slide to the conservative end of most issues.

Big Roy: as an ethical anarchist, I encourage you to stir up silly debate and heated passions on Political Blogs.

Political Blogs suck.

Troll, bait, shame, flame, abuse, torment, harsh, threadjack, trackback, RSS scrape, Captain Crunch them relentlessly. Bravo. Take either side, take both sides. The more insanity you cause at a political blog, the better.

Right, left, moderate, extremist -- they all suck.

By all means. A good way to learn the esoteric tricks of blogocombat and interpersonalized debate.

Humor and last laugh: I agree. I am always about an inch away from Blog Obsession Compulsion Disorder and Blog Induced Psychosis. I even have defined various blog related mental illnesses.

Blogging is dangerously addictive, and I got the geek neck to prove it.

I don't pick fights on other blogs any more although I have been guilty of it in the past. I guess I'm too self-centred to worry about other people right now. I start my fights with my own blog posts.

I get very few attacking responses on my blog which is nice but I will be absolutely merciless with anyone who trolls or flames on my blog. My house, my rules and I always get the last word.

YouTube is another matter completely. The moron quotient there is off the scale and I attract ahuge number of "haters". By the same token I don't chase down people to fight with but I'll always have the last word on my videos.